tv Consider This Al Jazeera November 26, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
>> consider this: the news of the day plus so much more. >> we begin with the growing controversy. >> answers to the questions no one else will ask. >> real perspective, consider this on al jazeera america >> countries in conflict, while crises rage around the world, do you rarely hear about many of them? for the next hour we'll focus on areas ravaged by terrorism, drug voyages and decades old struggles. how do these conflicts affect america? i'm antonio mora. welcome to a special edition of "consider this," underreported
hot spots from around the world. >> two bomb explosions have killed at least 60 people in a crowded market in northeast nigeria. boko haram -- >> killing several hundred people. >> libya is falling apart faster than we ever thought it would. >> as fighting continues for control. >> between militias and progovernment forces. >> through the region. >> violence erupting throughout mexico. >> protesters are demanding answers. >> killing of 43 students. >> approximately 100,000 people have been killed in mexico drug violence over the past decade. >> satellite images reportedly showing china building an island in north china sea big enough for an airstrip. >> critical of their country's human rights record. >> don't get along with each other. >> dispute, this cannot return to subcontinent.
>> the arab spring's promise of a middle east where dictatorships would be replaced by democracies have instead seen the region marked by civil war and conflict. among the worst hot spots, libya, two governments continue to fight over the spoils of their oil rich country. and al qaeda and i.s.i.l. threaten the entire middle east region. i'm joined by fawaz gurgis, london school of economics. also the author of several books and most recently served as the editor of the new middle east, protest and revolution in the new middle east. fawaz, good to see you. the irony of libya is its
descent into, when it helped officials topple moammar gadhafi. isn't it in a civil war already? >> almost. i think libya is almost descending into all out civil war. you have two authorities, you have two governments, you have many militias, many tribes fighting one another. it's a civil war seen as exist tensionexistential. i fear that libya is following in the foot tips of syria. you could -- footsteps of syria. this would be catastrophic, not only for the libyan people who have great hopes, but also, for the region as a whole. >> all right, let's break down what's going on. the numbers are astonishing. 1700 estimated militias and
fighting groups. as you said, you know, these two governments, libya's elected government got kicked out of tripoli the capital by an islamist faction that has control there. there's another islamist faction in benghazi, that killed the u.s. ambassador then there's a nationalist militia led by retired general, halifa haffar. does anyone have the upper hand here? >> i don't think so. what you have is a rough balance of power. this particular conflict could go on for years, even a decade, unless the international community intervenes and tries to resolve this particular conflict. it's not only a civil war between two identities, two world views, two authorities, one islamist and one nationalist, this is a civil war that's taken place antonio, not just in libya. it's taking place in egypt, it's
taking place in yemen, it's taking place in syria, it's taking place in iraq. it's an arab civil war, activist and nationalist, what you have now in libya is also a regional war by proxy. regional powers are pouring gas on the raging fire inside libya itself. that's why this is a very complicated situation and the challenge is for the international community to really invest considerable forces in order to rescue libya from deof the sent into all -- descent into all out war, because libya is descending into all outwar on a daily basis now. >> part of the problem, it is a proxy war and the people who are waging that proxy war are american allies in the gulf who are supporting different groups. >> this is the reality. you put your finger toing antonn
the pulse of the problem. yes, there is an internal divide inside libya. yes, libya is deeply polarized, yes, moammar gadhafi the former dictator basically bled libya dry, destroyed the basic institutions, the army dry. the real libya doesn't exist, on the one hand, you have egypt, you have the united arab emirates and you have turkey and qatar. this particular civil war, this particular are regional war by proxy is aplaying out in libya, playing out in syria, yemen and iraq, unless this regional war by proxy is basically put to an end, unfortunately i don't see how the libbians can put their house in order. we should not blame the libyan
people. the libyan people are courageous, they have had hopes and a aspirations, their views were gone in 1970s, 80s and 90s. but the regional war complicates and aggravates a deepening and widening islamist divide insides the dun. >> and another aspect is i.s.i.l. has managed to raise its black flag over a significant city, durna and other parts of libya. is there danger that i.s.i.l. could expand and include this in its caliphate at some point? >> look, for your american viewers, i.s.i.l, i.s.i.s, al nusra front, are parasites, they feed on civil chaos, wherever there is civil war, chaos, they
exist. afghanistan, syria, iraq and libya, of course they can. i would fear and not just speculating, there is a real fear that if libya descends into all out war, this is the early stages of all out war in libya, libya could become a base not only for i.s.i.s. but a base for selling arms for sending fighters, it could really destroy north africa, tunisia, not to mention the mediterranean. remember libya has a huge coast with europe including italy itself. so there is a fear a real danger that the so-called the islamic state could easily establish base inside libya and basically do a great deal of damage to this fragile country. >> final question fawaz is there an important lesson to be learned from libya?
the united states didn't go in didn't bomb, they in effect got rid of gadhafi to help the rebels but in the end we've seen this catastrophe because the country didn't have any institutions as you said because gadhafi had eliminated them so there was no way of this country being able to get its act together. >> absolutely. it's not just about getting rid of dictators. the bigger challenge, the greater challenge, antonio, is to rebuild the fragile institutions, to rebuild productive bases, to give a stake for the people, to assist the people in creating a security base, an army of police putting the country together, of course nato, got rid of moammar gadhafi. but as soon as gadhafi was gone, the international community was gone. a vacuum of security, of legitimate authority and competing tribes regions and
ethnicities, fighting for oil. as you said this is a very rich country and here also complicating this basic internal mosaic of political players a regional war by proxy that is really adding a great deal of tensions and prolonging this particular civil war that could easily plunge libya into a situation like syria and iraq. >> certainly an alarming situation there, nawaz thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> while the world has focused on the deadly ebola virus, bloody campaign to create their own caliphate in the region's powerhouse nigeria. male and female suicide bombers blamed on boko haram have killed nearly 140 people just in the past month including at least 44 people at a market tuesday, 45 more in an attack on a village thursday and 48 people at a boys
high school assembly on november 10th. a local politician from the ravaged village told reporters he was still searching for motives behind the mass killing and destruction. for more i'm joined from washington, d.c, by robin sanders and is the u.s. envoy to the democratic republic of congo, currently a ceo of needs, her latest book is the legendary uli women of nigeria. ambassador great pleasure to have you with us. nigeria seems to be incapable of stopping boko haram from doing what it wants in the northern part of the country, mass murder, the mass kidnapping of girls, thousands of people dead, suicide bombings, they've taken over small cities. the economist has said boko haram has grown in stature and
gruesomeness. why can't they be stopped? >> any time you deal with asymmetrical warfare which is what the military is dealing with with boko haram, they are trying but still behind the curve. they primarily have two play books, one is a peace keeping play book and one is how they handled the low level issue in the niger delta in the last few years. the distance between where central command is and where the fight is, long logistics to get there. they're going to have to rejigger and regroup and become a more flexible military to be able to respond quickly and to respond effectively. >> well, how big a problem is the government itself? nigerian president goodluck jonathan is running again. a new york times op ed says it's
the most corrupt government since nigeria gained independence in 1960. who's right? >> the corruption has always been there. every government i've followed has been, they were corrupt, corruption is out of control. corruption in nigeria is a fact, there is no question about that. unfortunately, nigeria seems to be moving down the list on transparency, international, instead of improving on the list of transparency international. they have to improve that not just for the boko haram but for the overall good of the country. they've made some strides, the economic issue out there is quite good, they're working well but overall, the undergirth ever corruption is still there and that's something they have to address as a nation. >> stopping the military, to be as flexible as they need to be,
because not enough money is going to finance the nigerian military? >> i don't believe that, actually, i've worked closely with the nigerian military over the years. corruption aside, whether or not that money is getting down to the are rank and file on the ground like it should be is a different issue. but overall, i think they need to be more flexible, they need to have better human intelligence, knowing where boko haram is going to strike, and they need to have better intelligence sharing among their neighbors. >> aside from the government corruption how concerned are you that this is a country that is so split that it will be difficult to end up reconciling the north and the south, the south being mostly christian and wealthier, the north being more muslim and poor? >> that's an argument that has been out there for quite a while. i don't feel, at this time, that there is any split that's going to happen in nigeria in terms of a north-south split. definitely there are views in
different political factions for each. but you're asking a broader plaque ro-question whether i think -- macro-question whether nigeria is going to split up and divide. i don't see that happening. >> and then the girls. despite the bring back our girls campaign, the hundreds of girls kidnapped from chibok, there was talk of a ceasefire, the nigerian government said they were going to have a ceasefire with boko haram and get the girls back, boko haram said no we haven't agreed to any ceasefire. what do you think, any hope of seeing these girls freed? >> certainly for the pain and suffering of the parents you don't want to take that away, that hope away from the parents but in reality i think it's going to be very difficult. i do think that nigeria got duped with this ceasefire flowment.
announcement. one of the things i said in my testimony on the hill, they need the stop having these ceasefire announcements. they need to do the right thing and they're responding quickly. i'm worried about the girls being involved in suicide bombings. there were two female suicide bombings in vudugery and conroy during the year. i'm wondering if there were already females in the ranks involved with niece, it might not have had a lot of international focus but definitely on the ground, i'm heading out there actually on friday. definitely the bring back our girls movement is still very active on the ground. i actually give them credit for at least trying keep the issue in the eyes of the media and in the eyes of the politicians but i am worried that the girls have been dispersed. and the ones that haven't been dispersed unfortunately i'm worried they're being trained,
certainly, maybe being forced in some of these horrific acts. there are a lot of things to be worried about. >> it is an important country for the u.s. and the continent's most populace state. ambassador thank you very much. >> thank you. >> coming up our look at global hot spots move to asia, also mexico is being terrorized by drug cartels, that may be more violent than i.s.i.l. what do you think? join the conversation at our facebook page and twitter @ajconsiderthis.
china was standing on uphodding peace and dialogue and consultation. but action speak louder than words and satellites show that china is building an island in the separately chain, big enough to hold an airstrip. demonstrators, and china continues to where support the government of north korea's kim jong-un. i'm joined in new york by gordon chang, a rg contribute to daily beast. gordon, good to have you with us. let's talk about the provocations that china is carrying out in the south china sea. specifically this latest one ton
separatelsprat lily islands, is. >> unimpeded and that means it needs to go through the first island chain like japan, taiwan, philippines. and really what it wants to do is to dominate this area. now of course that brings into conflict with countries that constitute the first island chain because china is trying to grab territory from them. and also it brings into conflict with the united states. because china's ambitions try really close off the south china sea, the east china sea and the united states has always stood for freedom of navigation. that's been a consistent policy for the last 200 years. >> it's making everyone nervous
including the japanese. and the conference, xi jinping and shinzo aib, shoozo abe, bute the tensions between these significant leaders in these areas? >> tensions are high are than they have been in a long time. japan actually went out and grabbed large chunks of china twice in the last couple hundred years. the problem is that when you had strong leaders in beijing "like" mao se tse tung and dung chao p, you don't see china getting any stronger in a sense, you see the communist party really insecure
right now and that means it needs to demonize the japanese. this is going to be a terrible story going forward. >> you don't want a major power with insecure politicians at the helm. they are also throwing their weight around in different ways to trying try the appease things with trade diplomacy or dollar diplomacy, is that having an effect? are some of these smaller countries say hey let's play nice with china because they're helping us out economically? >> countries on the periphery of china certainly want to have good relations with beijing. there is no sense of putting yourself into conflict with the major continental power in the region. so therefore we are seeing these trade initiatives like the new silk road, and the maritime silk road going through the straits of molacca, countries want to take advantage of that. that doesn't mean they're going to give up their territory to
the chinese, or ever even defero them. >> how big of an issue is the perception by the chinese that there is american weakness and that they can take advantage of that to further their power in the region? >> well, chinese state media talks about that all the time. in private conversations chinese diplomats remind their counterparts in southeast asia that united states is not going to be there to stay. this is part of what china wants to propagate. you look at the united states, with the recovery economy, it is not a country in decline. but may be a country in retreat. those may be two different things. >> relations in china, has china won that battle? they were worried that this kind of prodemocracy protesting in
hong kong would spread to the maimainland, and that may have fizzled out too. >> basically, china has lost the argument in hong kong, can they clear the protesters? yes they can. but the issue is no longer the protest, but the underlying one which is democracy for hong kong, beijing has lost that argument. nobody want to be infantilized. and that's what china has said, you're too insecure and not knowledgeable enough to govern yourself. that doesn't sit well in a society like hong kong. people in taiwan have seen what is happening in hong kong. now you see more protesters in the mainland itself. they have detained more than 100
people for sympathy actions to hong kong. that doesn't set well for beijing right now. nortnorth koreans had a minr charge offensive by releasing two american hostages, did some lobbying at the united nations, but the united nations ignored north korea's efforts and they have issued a report that's really quite powerful about their crimes. and saying that it is the -- that their human rights record is without parallel in the contemporary world. and kim's response last been to just threaten to have more nuclear tests. >> and that's not working because next month the general assembly will accept the report of its third committee and they will refer there to the security council with the recommendation that north korea be sent to the international criminal court in
the hague. >> will that change anything, and will the chinese just veto this so that there's actually no final condemnation? >> the chinese and russians will veto this whether it gets to the security council but right now north korea is really upset about this. it does have a difference, these symbolic acts are very important not to democracies because we're not concerned about the legitimacy of our governments but very important to authoritarian and totalitarian states. north korea is very upset about this. we are seeing more countries get on the band wagon and that's putting pressure on china. also implicated china for crimes against humanity for supporting north korea. this is going to be an increasing issue for beijing and pyongyang. >> gordon young, always great to see you. >> thanks. >> a hot spot on our border.
atros contiguous committed by mexican drug cartels have been as horrific as i.s.i.l, abductions, beheadings, even turning boys as young as 11 into assassins. mechanism kahn drug cartels murdered more than 16,000 people in 2013. and that's according to mex kahns the violence in mexico continues unabated in part because of government corruption there and the insatiable appetite for illicit drugs on this side of the border. joining us from san diego california, is david shirk, a global fellow, an associate professor of political science and international relations at the university of san diego and the director of the justice for mexico project. david good to have you back on the show. when we think about terrorism and depravity we think about
i.s.i.l. and al qaeda. but the truth is there is outrageous terror on our border. hundreds of people have been killed in mexico and the cartel induced violence have killed hundreds over the years. that should be more of a concern for the u.s. than some of these hot spots around the world, do you agree? >> mexico is incredibly important to the united states. most people don't realize it but it's the number 1 place for exports, number 1 place that americans travel o, half the people that live outside our borders live in mexico is very important and what's happening there on adaily basis affects our lives more than any other country i would argue in the world. but i think there is an important distinction to be made between what's happening in
mexico and what's happening currently in the middle east and in other parts of the world, where terrorism has been a problem or political extremism has been a problem. and that is precisely that mexican drug cartels have personal profit or gain, whereas other political insurgent movements, extremist movements are focused on ideology or territory or identity in some way. there's a political motive. and that's a key difference. that means that the way we fight these problems are going to be alittle bit different. >> talking about fighting the cartels in mexico, anyone who tries, gets killed. they've killed politicians police, and most of the kil kilg you have described is bad guys against bad guys, we've seen bad guys in mexico kill ordinary
people. >> yes and it's a problem that's been growing over the years. but what has galvanized a lot of public attention and outrage at the moment over the last couple of months is a terrible case of 43 students who have been disappeared along with a dozen or so others who were killed or injured by police brutality, acts of police brutality in collaboration with organized crime groups and gangs at the local level they state of guerrero, the same state where acapulco is located. and that outrageous massacre, what many are calling the ig w l aigwalamassacre, also political
repression, the students who were killed or disappeared were simply protesting the educational reforms that were passed over the last year or so, by the pena nieto administration and advocating for the rights of students and teachers. so that blending of criminal violence and political violence is something that's worrying and a little bit new. in mexico. >> because in this case the students may have been turned over to gangs by the mayor of igwala and by police in that city and so this has sparked kind of unprecedented protests, calling for even the resignation of president pena nieto. will this make any difference? >> already the mayor of igwala fled and was eventually captured. the governor of the state of guerrero where these incidents occurred stepped down and now calls across the country are trying to seek the downfall of
president pena nieto. i don't think the president is going to step down any time soon over this incident. it's difficult to establish a direct link of responsibility there but i do think that the president is going to have to respond very boldly to the demands of the public protestors. some of whom are wielding molotov cocktails. so the federal government is very concerned. they have already announced, the president has already announced he is going to redouble efforts to promote judicial sector reform in mexico, speeding up the time line for implementation of a new criminal justice system. also he is going to i think in the coming days going to announce a new law enforcement reform, police reform that may centralize policing to create one common command structure for all police in mexico which may or may not have the intended effect of improving justice in mexico.
>> but in the end do the cartels have too much power for things to change? too many politicians in their pockets, as citizens stand up to them get killed? >> the situation is somewhat different. the mexican government has spent the last few years breaking up, pounding on these cartels and locking up their leaders. organized crime has become more fragmented, more disorganized crime if you will and that means ordinary people have been affected more directly by gangs like the miguel cabrer guerrero. in many ways you're faced with a sorcerers, apprentice problem. problems affecting all different parts of the country and there's
not going to be a sill err bullet, not a magical turning of the corner in trying to resolve this situation. it's going to take wide spread long term institutional reforms in mexico and that public frustration and outrage is going to have to turn into a constructive civic engagement in order for those changes to succeed. >> again resolving the problem isn't just important for mexico, it's important for the united states. david shirk, it's good to have you with us. >> thank you. >> india and pakistan, a standoff that's lasted nearly three quarters of a century. and the geography of extremism. how 80% of terror related deaths occur in just five countries. >> no one's prepared for this journey. >> experience al jazeera america's critically acclaimed original series from the beginning. >> experiencing it has changed me completely. >> follow the journey as six
>> our next hot spot is one that has existed for almost seven decades, ever since the british left the indian subcontinent. tedgess between the two countries are cyclical. at one moment seemingly close to reaching peace and normalizing relations, the next mired in bloody violence, especially over the kashmir area to the north. the other represents a exefntion threaexistenceexefntioexistent y
certifiable. after the split occurred in the 1940s how does the department of that history set the stage for that current conflict? >> antonio, it means nct there is a cultural memory of violence between the two that grow out of their emergence into independence. and it's been hard to reconcile that and the pinpoint of that is the subject that you mentioned, kashmir, where there is certainly a very large territorial dispute about who controls the area and who should control it. >> all right, let's talk a
little more historically before we talk about kashmir specifically because there have been changes. the u.s. has been more closely allied with pakistan, the old soviet union and russia with india, but those old alliances are shifting, in 2000 -- this year india became the largest buy are of weapons, pakistan inked a deal with russia. how are those representing? >> they represent a sense of each of the countries in the region that they have to find new arrangements that the old cold war arrangements that existed are no longer sufficient to give them assurance of security and support. pakistan in large measure because in fact pakistan had supported the afghan taliban and seems to continue to do so, despite the fact that it is morphed into their own territory. and india, because it relied
very heavily on the soviet union, to be kind of a bullwark against american dominance as they saw that as a potential. and with the failure of the soviet union at the end of the cold war i think they shifted and began to again look at the united states with a somewhat open attitude. those that have made a difference and while pakistan is not going to be an ally of russia the idea of put it this way opening up their arms purchases and reducing dependence on one or other sources is clearly on the back side, pakistan has had a long and significant relationship with china, we shouldn't feght that and that continues. >> you bring up afghanistan, the kabul government is becoming more closely allied with india. you mention pakistan's support
of the taliban which is trying to gain control over afghanistan. is there a danger of a proxy conflict in afghanistan that could further destabilize pakistan, sorry afghanistan? >> we have a subterranean proxy conflict going on already. india has put a lot of money into economic development in afghanistan. pakistan fears this. pakistan's relationship with afghanistan has been based on a simple strategic principle. that afghanistan could be the secure rear area which they need to keep out of the hands of india because they fear one way or another that india would move against them. if this conundrum if i could put it this way with india now growing in its influence in afghanistan, and pakistan perhaps receding a little bit, and seeing the afghans a afghano
the taliban, has begun to polarize that situation more than i think is healthy. >> despite that very popular daily waga ceremony that's conducted by the military of both countries at a border crossing the fighting in the region has gotten worse in recent years than it has been in a while. the border between the two countries is far larger than just kashmir. why is that area still so contentious? >> it represents when the two countries became independent, a hindu ruler of a muslim area agreeing at the time of independence to accede to india, just as pakistan moved irregular forces in to dispute the territory and fighting resulted. in the end it ended up with a large share of that disputed territory, pakistan with a much smaller amount.
but india ended up with significant muslim majority inside kashmir which in itself has been aggravated by continued indiindian rule large presence f the army. this has resulted in a long hot-cold conflict, the solution which in many ways is very complex. at the inauguration of prime minister modi, pakistani prime minister nawaz sharif was invited to come and he met with kashmiri leaders and the indians objected to this, and this has put a cloud over their situation. >> and modi suffered backlash to
seem to be friendly with the new indian leader. >> they did at home and of course there will always be tough hard liners and recalcitrants at home that will object to any kind of conversations, believing the leader is about to sell the national interest down the river. that's a tragedy and shouldn't be allowed to happen. but it's a difficult question and as you pointed out in the opening remarks, conflict between two could be serious and if there are serious questions, it could write the nuclear situation within range. >> nuclear powers and two of the most populace cubs in the world. ambassador thank you for being with us. >> thank you antonio, nice to be back. >> coming up the overwhelming amount of terror attacks only
hit 5% of countries next in our data dive. the new space race >> we're democratizing space... >> for profit... >> a hunk of the moon that you can hold in your hands, could be worth a billion dollars >> who are the players? what's the cost? how will it impact our future? >> i hope that when i'm 50 i'll be a millionaire from this >> from fiction to fact, al velshi investigates the business of space on al jazeera america
>> a conflict that started 100 year ago, some say, never ended... revealing... untold stories of the valor... >> they opened fire on the english officers... >> sacrifice... >> i order you to die... >> and ultimate betrayal... drawing lines in the sand that would shape the middle east and frame the conflict today >> world war one: through arab eyes only on al jazeera america
>> today's data dive looks at the geography of terror. nearly 18,000 people died in terror attacks last year, more than 80% of them happened in just five countries, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, nigeria and syria. global terrorism index published by the institute for economics and peace. iraq has become the biggest target. 6500 people were killed by terrorist attacks there last year nearly 4,000 more than in 2012. while terror deaths occur in just five countries there are a shot list of those responsible. four terror groups caused two-thirds of all the are fatalities, the taliban, boko haram, al qaeda and i.s.i.l. five times higher than the number of deaths in 2000. and the justification for the attacks has changed.
religion has become the main driver force behind terrorism since then. yeaovertaking national separatit causes. the report also notes where terrorism is rarely occurring. 34 of the world's richest countries which are part of the organization for economic quooptiocooperation and develop, only suffered 5th% o 5% of terrm deaths. coming up we'll wrap up our look at global cries eas crisest often hear about. >> hi everyone, i'm john siegenthaler, coming up right after "consider this," new cleveland video of officers shooting a 12-year-old. plus the images of ferguson how they're driving the conversation. housing prices rising cost force
the world's under-reporting hot spots, what does america plan to do with them? how far should american leadership go in tackling these problems from our southern border to the south china sea? i'm joined by curt volker, dispute assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs. ambassador, glad to have you with us, on this show for a broader perspective. to put it mildly, ma madeleine albright said. >> the first off, yes, the world is a mess. but it's not only the fact that it's a mess for all the people
around the world who live there but these things can affect the united states, they can affect u.s. interests both abroad and here in this country. they can affect u.s. allies. so it's not a matter offalfal altruism, if we don't address some of these things, they can get worse, they can affect us. the second thing then is you need to have some sort of strategy, how do you sort these things out? i would say we need to have two categories to sort these things out. the first is, what are our own goals, what would we like to see the world look like 15, 20 years from now, a world more respectful of human rights, more democratic, more prosperous, more secure, one that's more secure for u.s. interests. we should be investing. our foreign policy should be aimed at investing in those things going to slaip the world in that direction and the
converse is some of these crises that we see, some of them will be local but some will derail the development of the world into different directions, one that's not good for u.s. interests or not good for the developments in the world. so we should be tackling these criecries ease in thecrises in . >> that could be a significant conflict for the united states, because i.s.i.l. is already getting involved, it clearly is already a failed state in libya and could be dangerous for the united states. but is there appetite for the united states to get involved in another middle eastern country like this a north african country where it would require a enormous investment of money and
lives? >> when you ask the question is there appetite? certainly no one goes around looking for oh is there another middle east conflict you could t in the middle of? is this a significant enough conflict for implications for the region that it is going to affect u.s. interest u.s. allies u.s. security oto a long time owners-for a long time to come , when you put the question like that to the general public i think they're going to understand that there is something we need to do and that we hope that we can develop the right strategy to implement that. libya's a great case in point because you do see the development and the routing of foreign fighters of al qaeda inside libya, that has an impact on a wider region, that can give fuel to the conflict in syria, it can lead to attacks on american citizens american interests around the world so there is an interest. i think the way to think of
libya though is there's a legitimate government, it replaced moammar gadhafi, and we would have to have a long term strategy of trying to support that government weakening the insurgency, in order to rebuild governments in libya and the ability for that government to provide security in its own territory. maybe american military help, maybe alliance military help, maybe other countries should be able to help, maybe not the united states imposing security on its own but together with other countries. >> taiwan, japan, philippines, are those treaties part of the cold war past and can we live up to them? >> they are essential today, yes, they come out of a cold war past but they are essential today because they oar bedrock of the stability that we see in asia right now. if china saw that korea was
alone, the philippines was alone, i think there would be a risk that it attempted to be more aggressive in trying to establish control over territories, strengthen or expand its territorial control over sea space, so i think the u.s. relationships there have helped to stabilize this over time. what we hope is that we can build a long term basis of that kind of stability and security in asia. i think right now china does seek to challenge that and the u.s. role essentially to maintain it and even reach agreement on this. >> talking about stability, is the united nations worth the dues we pay when it comes to tamping down the world's hot spots? we keep seeing the split in the security council between russia, china and the other permanent members who constantly veto things that the united states supports. so are the u.s. and its allies going alone without the united nations?
>> well, again i might think of that framework a little bit differently. the eunlt united nations chartes about the development of international peace and security. it's founded on the core values of democracy, human rights, rule of law, security, respect for sovereignty. so those are the things that the united nations was created to uphold. unfortunately we have on the security council permanent member russia that is not interested in those values and that is at odds with others on the security council like the u.s., the u.k. and san francisco that would seek to uphold those things. so the security council itself is kind of broken and not going to live up to those functions. there are however other parts of the u.n. that are extremely valuable. particularly the specialized organizations like the world health organization, international labor organization, international organization for migration and many, many others. so the u.n. system is tremendously valuable. we wouldn't want to lose that. and also the u.n. does provide a venue where nations of the world
can meet and congregate convey messages to each other exchange diplomatic relationships with each other, particularly for those that don't have an embassy everywhere in the world like the united states does. i wouldn't want to trash the u.n. across the board but we recognize that the security council per se with that role on international peace and security is not doing the job we all hoped it would when it was founded. >> i understand that the united states cannot be the world's policeman something you addressed earlier. what would you tell americans who say look, let's just close ourselves off to the rest of the world, why get involved in all this, what do you see is the danger of american isolationism? >> it's the danger we have seen over the lifetime of this country. we try to do that and discover that in fact those problems find united states. it found us on 9/11 and we were
attacked by terrorists in afghanistan, they made their plans inhamburg germany, those -- the u.s. economy depends on a successful global economy, the way energy flows, trade flows, the united states depends on that. we have all those various terrorist groups in the middle east that want to hit american interests, they want to if they can and it's important that we stop them before they do. any number of reasons and ways in which these problems in the world will affect u.s. interests. that's why the u.s. has to have a robust but smart foreign policy to shape the world it's going to be to our advantage. >> ambassador curt volker thank you very much and have a happy thanksgiving. >> thank you, you to.
>> that's it for tonight, you can tweet me @amoratv. we'll see you next time. >> hi, i'm john siegenthaler, this is al jazeera america. >> the uncertainty, the third night of protesters, demonstrators, the police and the fallout in ferguson. shootings, disturbing video. another life attention, and more questions about race and the police the lowest gas